2010 Turning Point for Homeopathy

A lot’s happened in the last year, and it’s been a particularly wild ride for me and homeopathy. 2010 was actually a big year for me and homeopathy. And well it should’ve been, for 2010 was the 200th anniversary of the publication

Kirlian photograph of homeopathic remedy by Chris Wodtke

 of Organon der rationellen Heilkunde, The Organon of the Healing Art, Samuel Hahnemann’s first treatise on homeopathy, a science that he alone begat.

It is a book that continues to rock the medical world.

I think it should be noted here, that as an orthodox physician, Hahnemann had been cutting his doses for 14 years prior to publication of the Organon. He was compelled to do so because of the harm that “heroic medicine,” then as now, was doing to the withering public.

Bloodletting by barbers and toxic chemicals administered by the totally unschooled to treat disease in 1810 graduated to more sophisticated methods of bloodletting by unnecessary surgery —  and more toxic, patented petro chemical  synthesis and “chemotherapy,” to treat disease.

“Heroic medicine” was not called that because of what the physician did, it was called that because of what the patient endured. But with homeopathy came hope, and that hope is alive today.

Hahnemann didn’t just spring out of the gate with this thing, as an idea untested all on its own, it had to first stand trial to his own incredulity and testing. The 14 year trial was that of a well-trained, travelled and read government medical doctor who, for his time, was also a first rate published chemist.

Anyone who can be fair and objective about it, who still harbors any doubts about homeopathy, should keep that in mind when banking on Avogadro’s Constant, the famous hypothesis concerning the molecular limit of gasses in combination with one another, for with all theory aside, Hahnemann, as countless others have done in following him, had to accept, without supporting theory or logic,  the evidence for the biological action of high dilutes, for seeing is believing, and practitioners for 200 years have seen that homeopathy oddly works . . as if by magic.

But homeopathy is not magic, as a growing number of material scientists have come to realize. There are now 10 different physical tests for homeopathic high dilutes, and six different types of in vitro tests, in which some published tests which have perfect ratings.

Coincidentally, 2011 marks the 200th year anniversary of publication of that theory by Avogadro, “Essay on Determining the Relative Masses of the Elementary Molecules of Bodies and the Proportions by Which They Enter

Conte Lorenzo Romano Amedeo Carlo Bernadette Avogadro di Quaregna e Cerreto, Count of Quaregna and Cerreto b. 9 August 1776, Turin, Piedmont, d. 9 July 1856)

These Combinations.” As if we didn’t know. Since the beginning theory by the numbers have dogged homeopathy as impossible,when in fact a heterogeneous molecule was never suspect. Like the skeptics’ Elvis, Avogadro has left the building.

2010 was also anniversary for something else quite notable in this affair, really the key item that distinguishes a homeopathic solution from its solvent vehicle. 200 years ago two famous English chemists, Sir Humphrey Davy, and Michael Farraday, in their study of chlorine, made note of liquid aqueous structuring, what they called hydrates, curious clatcheses of water molecules that twinkled like ice, which later came to be known as clathrates. Hold on to that last word, it is the final key to unlocking the mystery of homeopathy. 2010 was the year of the clathrate when it was indicted for causing the BP Gulf of Mexico oil well disaster and became the subject of wild speculation at the Cavendish Laboratory when it was announced it was the operative mechanism of the homeopathic remedy, the same place where a decade ago a notorious French immunologist proclaimed a new biological paradigm.  

It is the year when I began my lecture before the crowned heads of Europe by showing a power point picture of the suspect, saying, “Ladies and gentlemen, the clathrate hydrate. This concludes my lecture, other than where is

clathrate model

Josephson’s Scotch, are there any questions?” and was mobbed by silence, forced to

Scotch Josephson denied me at the Cavendish. He said my videos were socially unacceptable.

go on for an hour to explain it all, and getting nothing for it but some weak orange juice, stingily poured by Josephson.

Thanks to Dr. Shashi Sharma, president of Hahnemann College of Homeopathy in London, my efforts came to fruition in 2010 with an invitation to be the key note speaker at his conference there, where I was treated like a king, and at the Cavendish Laboratory at Cambridge where, by invitation of Nobel laureate, Professor Brian Josephson, I was given an opportunity to present my theory for the molecular pecularities of the homeopathic remedy.

Now you know. Until my London lectures in September and October of 2010, the polar protic water molecule eluded a popular explanation as to how it forms liquid aqueous structuring (LAS), and how LAS is relevant to a classical science explanation of the homeopathic remedy’s inner workings.

2010 marked the 100th year anniversary of Johannes Diedrik van der Waals’s award of the Nobel prize for his contributions to understanding the intermolecular forces which now bear his name, critical to understanding liquid aqueous structuring, confirming what the genius of Hahnemann presented 100 years prior,

Johannes Diderik van der Waals

that the biological effects of the homeopathic remedy are magnetic.

2010 marks the year we declared that the homeopathic remedy could be explained in the terms of supramolecular chemistry.

And I did it without the Scotch.


It really began in earnest for me 10 years ago when James Randi offered me his million dollar prize to prove that the action of homeopathic remedies was something more than a psychogenic effect.

I took his challenge naively  believing the offer was genuine.

My friend and colleague, James "the Amazing" Randi

Much to the disbelief and fury of the big pharma stooges, the literature, much of it through PUBMED, provided numerous ways to show the action of homeopathic remedies outside of the human domain. I found that they not only had physical distinctions, they had action on plants and animals, too, that could be shown by a wide variety of methods. But their most prounounced action was in the most infinitesimal doses, remotely applied, on our greatest opponents, precipitating violent contractions of the jaw and vocal mechanism, and highly agitated contractions of the fingers on keyboards.  One detractor called me a murderer. Another said I was an idiot. Another said I was homeopathetic. 

But it was not enough to dissuade me from clinging to my chains. Randi ran like a rabbit.

I sent my samples to Kirlian phtographer Chris Wodtke, who made some amazing pictures of them, showing the crackling feathers coming out of the gas discharge from the thousands of electrocuting volts coursing through the drop. When it began looking like I actually had methods by which to win the million, such as by Kirlian photography, or by plants, Randi said I was a nobody and had bigger fish to fry.

The renowned immunologist, Dr. Jacques Benveniste, 1935-2004

He claimed that French immunologist Jacques Benveniste and Professor Brian

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambrdige

The brilliant Professor Brian Josephson of the Cavendish Laboratory, Cambridge

Josephson of Cambridge had agreed to accept his challenge, and that he would test them first. What? I coldn’t belive it. If elt like a jilted lover. But always the hero, Josephson wrote to say that they were not interested in being “tested” by Amazing Randi, understandable after what Randi had done to Benveniste years earlier. It was a circus with clowns with rats riding on the backs of dogs, jumping through hoops of fire.  The Challenge, Jacques and Josephson said, was mine, and they sent Randi careening back to me.

Randi kept stalling. He refused to set a test date. He found some university stooge to fence with me for a while until the stooge ran off and hid under his pillow. It was doubly, triply (I’d say quadruply if it wasn’t so corny) evident that Randi wasn’t going to make good on his offer to conduct a test, so I took my case to Naomi Shapiro, Randi’s account manager at Goldman Sachs, where the loot was supposed to be hid. She wouldn’t verify anything. All Randi had as proof of the prize — reportedly put up by Richard Adams of UUNET — was an old fax with Shapiro’s name on it. It was evident that at one time the account may have held a million dollars in what may have been nothing more than junk bonds, but what was in there now could have been nothing more than stack of Rnadi'[s old Blue Boy magazines.

$1,000,000.00 CASH

When I sprung the news that Goldman Sachs was refusing to verify the account, Randi sprung into action. He accused me of “damaging the James Randi Educational Foundation,” had a heart attack and like a street corner bum started selling pens dipped in “homeopathic gold,” to pay for it.

What Randi didn’t want anyone to know was that “aurum,” homeopathic gold, is the

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

Chest pains . . too much GM corn syrup

first remedy indicated by heart troubles and depression. Obviously he was taking it because he couldn’t afford the doubt.

Exposed in his ruse, Randi then claimed he wouldn’t test me because I was insane.

The only way, he said, he would continue negotiations with me for a test of homeopathy, would be for me to get a signed affidavit attesting to my mental condition from a clinical psychologist.

November 2nd, 2000 I found myself wandering the eerily quiet streets of a suburb of Tucson, close to the

Prof. Gary Schwartz, author of "The Living Universe"

University. Down to my last few bucks, I had hitched a ride from Portland, Oregon to meet with Dr. Gary Schwartz, a professor of clinical psychology and psychiatry, who had expressed an interest in my research and was looking for a physical distinction in the homeopathic remedy.

I said I could provide it.

Schwartz’ lab was called the Human Energy Systems Laboratory (HESL). It was located in a little bungalow in the university neighborhood. The garage had been converted into a workshop. Schwartz was using electronic equipment to test subtle energy effects and especially how they applied to what is thought of as the paranormal.

When I arrived on foot I saw a young man in the garage through the open door. I heard zapping sounds coming from within. I think he was electrocuting mice. The ones without intuition. Having arrived early, rather than bother the man’s animal genocide, I decided I would kill time by taking a stroll.

I was walking down the street minding my own business when suddenly a black high-rise pickup pulled up. A man with a beard and sunglasses rolled down the driver side window and, pointing up into the sky behind me, said in a nasally voice, “Look at the Sun.”

I turned around, and saw one of the oddest and most spectacular sights of my life. In a cloudless sky the Sun appeared to have split into three parts. I had never seen anything like it. It created what looked like a huge eye

El Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil

 peering down at me.

I turnedback around. The pickup was gone.

I then embarked on my own mission of evangelism. I asked passerby at the University what it was. Not one person had noticed it until I pointed it out, as had been done for me, and all but one stared increduously. Most everyone, likeme, had walking around without looking up, and no one knew. Finally a young woman said it was the Ojo del Diablo, the Eye of the Devil.

The Eye of the Devil?

I thought that sounded a bit harse. I called for damage control. And then I htought. If it could be the eye of the devil, it could also be el ojo de Dios, the Eye of God.
In any case we were being stared at from above by what looked like a huge shining eye. I went back to the HESL. I called to the young man in the garage and asked him to come outside. He did, and asked what the matter was.

I pointed up. “Have you ever seen that before?” I asked.

“No, I haven’t he said,” shading his eyes. “What is it?”

“El Ojo de Dios.” I nodded my head knowingly, as if I knew. “God is watching us.”

As it turned out, it was what is called parhelia, commonlhy known as sun dogs. The effect is caused by ice crystals in the upper atmosphere. The actual science bore out the myth. Ice crytals, as it turned out 10 years later,  were indeed the key.

After our meeting, Schwartz visited Randi in his Ft. Lauderdale office. According to Schwartz, Randi was still insisting I was crazy, slapping the desk with his hand — and John Edward, the past life medium Schwartz had been testing, a liar.

He said all of this with his pants ablaze.

Three years later, in collaboration with Professor Iris Bell, MD, Schwartz followed my suggestion to use Kirlian

Professor Iris Bell, MD, in collaboration with Prof. Gary Schwartz, created a unique test for homeopathy

photography to produce the Gas Discharge Visualization test for homeopathy, and reported, as I had found, that homeopathic remedies can indeed be distinguished from their liquid vehicles by this method.

They published their results: “The procedure generated measurable images at the two highest voltage levels. At 17 kV, the remedies exhibited overall lower image parameter values compared with solvents (significant for Pulsatilla and Lachesis), as well as differences from solvents in fluctuations over repeated images (exposures to the same voltage). At 24 kV, other patterns emerged, with individual remedies showing higher or lower image parameters compared with other remedies and the solvent controls.” (Bell)

Like every other test I had found for homeopathy, Randi had to brush this one off too. Losing his million would not only be a loss of property and face, it would threaten the entire pharmaceutical paradigm that was supporting him.

Ten years ago there was practically no references at all to homeopathy on the Web, nothing regarding pre-clinical or clinical evidence when I posted my collection of pre–clinical tests for “Proof for Homeopathy.”

The world wide web was a novelty then and very few people noticed “Proof for homeopathy,” but after I reposted that same collection as the first post of this blog, it was reposted and went viral. It became notorious and still stands

Your friend, your best friend, your only friend: John Benneth, PG Hom. - London (Hons.)

 as the most viewed entry in the John Benneth Journal.

It seems like homeopathy took off like rocket after that. Prior to assembling Proof for Homeopathy the homeopaths I was in contact with had very little knowledge of the clinical tests for homeopathy, and none for the pre-clinical.

Follow JBennethJournal on Twitter

The homeopaths I corresponded with didn’t seem to even have asked the question as to whether or not high dilutes could affect non human subjects, such as plants and animals. The only in vitro test popularly known for homeopathy was the one done by the brilliant immunologist Jacques Benveniste, the basophil degranulation test, but it was generally thought of as being idiopathic and the man contagious with quackery.

The fact of the matter is that the basophil degranulation test was not of Benveniste’s origin. It was first attempted in 1985 by Murrieta et al and first accomplished by Poitevin in the same year. I have now found more than two dozen replications of the basophil degranulation test for homeopathy, most notably the work by Sainte Laudy and Belon (Sainte-Laudy)

I don’t think homeopaths’ ignorance of the pre-clinical and clinical tests for homeopathy is excusable, but I think its understandable. Despite what may be said of it, the homeopathic materia medica, the reference work built on case notes that homeopath’s rely on for finding the right remedy, provides the most relevant information/evidence for the use/action of high dilutes. Compare the terms, one set for the practitioner, one for the doubter. The pre-clinical and clinical trials of homeopathy serve mostly to respond to the yet unproven accusations that homeopathy is merely a placebo. The average practitioner finds the pre-clinicals and clinical tests to be merely vituperative of homeopathy and useless in the clinical practice of homeopathy. Either way they are merely pebbles thrown against a tank. No information/evidence will ever suffice to convince the unconvincible, nor will it ever.

The most remarkable finding was something I just came across, and inevitably I think that in concordance with theory and evidence, will help to break the back of the pharma stooge‘s opposition.. That more was not made of it, to me illustrates the point of resistance, but it is profound that it appeared in this red letter year. What makes it so important I think is not what is said  (it is 40 years old and prosaic) but who is saying it.

It is a statement made by Emeritus Professor Martin Chaplin, one of the world’s leading authorities on the physics of water. It really deserves an entry all of its own here on the Journal, for it marks a turning point in the recognition

“Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.”– Emeritus Professor Martin Chaplin, London South Bank University, world’s leading authority on water.

of homeopathy as being based on real scientific principles. Yes, I know, reading it you will see that Chaplin covers his bet, so no one can say he drank the dilute Kool Aid. But even though it is true, for a man of lesser credentials it would mean professional suicide to make such a statement.
In an article entitled The Memory of Water, posted on the London South Bank University website, (probably the best website for information about the physics and chemistry of water) Professor Chaplin says, “Water does store and transmit information, concerning solutes, by means of its hydrogen-bonded network.” (Chaplin)

The word “does” invokes the controversy that should have ended in the mid 20th century when clathrates became an issue for the oil companies, clogging up oil pipelines, and in the fifties when double Nobel laureate Linus Pauling nominated them as being the cause of inebriation, or in the sixties when Barnard frist linked  them to the homeopathic solution, or in the nineties, when Anagnostatos described their formation in the host/guest process, and then finally in 2010, when a study between US and Russian universities, clathrates were revelaed to affect the taste of vodka (Schaffer)

Note that all of these examples of clathrates are in solution with hydrocarbons such as ethanol or methane, which are capable of hydrogen bonding, a point always missed by the disbeliever. 

What have we been saying for years now? Next thing you know Chaplin will cave and admit that the biological effects are due to the crystalline piezo electric effect.

The article is prefaced with an epitaph to the late Benveniste: “Maybe I should have thrown the data away” followed by a comment by Chaplin, “but being a scientist and believing in his data he could not.”

I for one am glad that he didn’t, and I am sorry for the all the misery Maddox, Stewart and Randi put him through.

I would add something to the memorial that Benveniste wrote to me, if I could:

“Homeopathy is the devil’s piss pot.”

Bell IR, Lewis DA 2nd, Brooks AJ, Lewis SE, Schwartz GE. “Gas discharge visualization evaluation of ultramolecular doses of homeopathic medicines under blinded, controlled conditions.”
Chaplin M “Memory of Water”  lsbu(dot)ac(dot)uk/water/memory(dot)html
Murrieta M, Leynadier F, Dry J. “Degranulation of human basophils and so-called homeopathic substances” Bull Acad Natl Med. 1985 May;169(5):619-22.
Poitevin, B., Aubin, M., Benveniste, J. (1985) Effect d’Apis Mellifica sur la degranulation des basophiles humains in vitro. Homeopathie Francaise 73: 193.
Sainte-Laudy J, Belon P. Inhibition of basophil activation by histamine: a sensitive and reproducible model for the study of the biological activity of high dilutions. Homeopathy. 2009 Oct;98(4):186-97.


18 comments on “2010 Turning Point for Homeopathy

  1. Very soon this web site will be famous among all blog viewers, due to it’s good posts


  2. Tim Bolen says:


    Perhaps you and I should have a talk. You treat the sleazy pseudo-skeptics much nicer than I do.

    Your reliance on intellectual scorn is misplaced. Most of them have no idea what you are talking about, and certainly do not grasp your biting wit.

    I did, however, like your video about Steven Novella very much. We should compare notes, soon.

    Tim Bolen
    jurimed2 at earthlink.net


    • johnbenneth says:

      Hi Tim, thanks for your comments here. Frankly, I’m not sure which superlatives to use in responding to you for the great work you’ve done in behalf of the public, fighting the Evil Empire. Anyone with a social conscious should visit the Bolen website, http://www.bolenreport.com. To my knowledge his expose’ of pseudoskeptics is unequaled by anything on the web. We are blessed to have Tim Bolen as our champion.
      And yes, Novella is certainly a work in regress.
      But listen, without sounding fawning and obsequious, I don’t know how to thank you properly for the work you’ve done, Mr. Bolen. To many of us homeopaths you are a hero.
      It would be an honor, a pleasure and a great learning experience to talk to you. I could use your adivce on a thing or two . .
      John Benneth


  3. kevin morris says:


    You know I have a high regard for you. Despite your more frequent resorting to invective than I would like, I know you are a human being who isn’t afraid to bear his soul for what he believes to be a good cause. Given that you are not a homoeopath yourself that makes all you do for us all the more remarkable. Clearly you are made of finer stuff than your detractors and even some of your supporters but I would be much happier if you would lighten up somewhat.

    Yes, we have our detractors. We always have had and that really isn’t going to change soon. As I’ve been at pains to express many times, people have a right to their own opinions and just because they run counter to ours doesn’t mean that they must be in the pay of big pharma, the devil imncarnate or anyone else for that matter. Although some may be most of those negativities out there are merely reflections of the same within us all and no invective known to man is powerful enough to exorcise it all, though homoeopathy can go a long way to doing so.

    For me that is a message not of pessimism or defeatism but of optimism because I know our cause is a good and an honourable one and because I don’t have to seek recourse to excuses about demons that are really of my own making, I know that if I fail as a homoeopathic practitioner I have only myself to blame- not Codex, big pharma or any other such chimeras. Frankly, recourse to all else is delusion and the way of disease.

    I remember asking you several months ago if you were a practitioner. In many ways it saddens me that you aren’t. You fight for a just cause because you have seen the wonderful benefits of homoeopathy deomstrated to you directly. Your experiences are what make most people from such a wide variety of backgrounds seek training: having participated in what seems so miraculous, they wish to pass their experiences onto others and few professions can be so rewarding.

    It would make me extremely happy to see you on a similar journey yourself- sharing in the profundity and the beauty of the experiences of those great men and women who came before us. Why not join us directly in that journey? No-one would expect you to give up your special area of interest- indeed that would enrich your studies.

    You are a compassionate man. You owe it to yourself.

    Best wishes,



    • Peter Salterton says:

      Kevin. I think you are being too kind to Benneth.

      Homeopaths have a big choice in 2011. Do you want to move forward and show the world that you are a compassionate, thoughtful and outward looking profession? Or do you want to continue to associate yourselves with the absurd, rude, thoughtless and ignorant, best typified here by Benneth? I would have thought that decision was easy given that Benneth turns out not even to be a homeopath.

      The best chance of survival for homeopaths in 2011 is thoughtful engagement. Homeopaths have refused to address the concerns of scientists about their practice by hiding behind the invented conspiracy that they are all paid shills of the pharma industry. You appear to be one the few homeopaths who recognises the absurdity of such a position.

      I am sure there are people who would wish to ban homeopathy – I am not one of them – and Benneth and his ilk are their greatest allies. By presenting such a vocal, extreme and absurd position, it is easy to present homeopaths as deranged loons who should not be let near ill people.

      What choices are you going to make in 2011?


  4. Kaviraj says:

    All people have the right to stupidity but some abuse the privilege.


  5. Kaviraj says:

    Time on our hands. I wish!

    We need to take the time off from other important things to educate the masses about the agenda of the pseudo-sceptics, which is to rob them of choice in treatment and subject them to poisoning with allopathic pharmaceutical cr@p.

    If serious scientists are prevented from investigating claims of homoeopathy out of fear for their reputations, then who is left to conduct these investigations? Extreme skeptics? No, because the fact is that most extremists do not conduct research, they specialize in criticism. Extreme believers? No, because they are usually not interested in conducting rigorous scientific studies.

    The word “extreme” is important to keep in mind. Most scientists seriously interested in homoeopathy are far more skeptical about claims of extreme dilute phenomena than most people realize.

    Why it is necessary to spend any time at all on the criticisms of homoeopathic materials research when we can demonstrate that there are valid experimental effects in search of answers? One answer is that very few are aware that the standard skeptical arguments have been addressed in exquisite detail, and they no longer hold up. Another is that the tactics of the extreme skeptics have been more than merely annoying. The professional skeptics’ aggressive public labeling of homoeopathy as a “pseudoscience,” implying fraud or incompetence on the part of the practitioners and researchers, has been instrumental in preventing this research from taking place at all. So we should be grateful to those researchers that have the courage to stand up and be counted.

    Most of the commonly repeated skeptical reactions to materials research proving homoeopathy, are extreme views, driven by the belief that homoeopathy is impossible. The effect of repeatedly seeing skeptical dismissals of the research, in college textbooks and in prominent scientific journals, has diminished mainstream academic interest in this topic. However, informed opinions, even among skeptics, shows that virtually all of the past skeptical arguments against homoeopathy have dissolved in the face of overwhelming positive evidence, or they are based on incredibly distorted versions of the actual research.

    They are the views of beancounters and bookkeepers, which are not qualified to speak on the subject, yet have the audacity to claim expertise, without one iota of proof they understand the basic tenets, such as Qolquhoun, Ernst, Baum and other assorted nincompoops. These people have been blown out of the water as ignoramuses.


    • johnbenneth says:

      What Kaviraj has to say is beautifully written, brilliant and true.
      “The professional skeptics’ aggressive public labeling of homoeopathy as a “pseudoscience,” implying fraud or incompetence on the part of the practitioners and researchers, has been instrumental in preventing this research from taking place at all. So we should be grateful to those researchers that have the courage to stand up and be counted.”
      It is a poignant fact that Kaviraj so eloquently states that the researchers of homeopathic phenomena will someday be regarded as heroes. Benveniste deserves the Nobel prize, not just for discovering a method by which to record and transmit the electromagnetic biological signal, but for the suffering he endured in doing it and stating that it is a new biological paradigm.
      I tell you now that people like P.Z. Myers and those others Kaviraj mentions . . Randi, Beddington, Goldacre, Novella, Shermer and the countless other stooges for the pharmaceutical racketeers, will eventually be regarded much in the same way as we now thnk of the persecutors of Galileo, now footnotes in his legend.
      They hate us because we have proved them obsolete.


      • MadGav says:

        Why do you both persist in labelling critics of homeopathy as stooges of big pharma?

        When large numbers of people share a view that conflicts with your own, it’s not necessary to see a conspiracy. Isn’t a more likely explanation that they are all following the evidence where it leads?

        You might disagree with their conclusions, but to claim that they are part of an organised attempt to suppress the ‘truth’ seems to step over a line.


  6. Liz Brynin says:

    This is more proof – if it were needed – and ties in exactly with what the late Professor Rustum Roy said about the memory of water. But I guess it’s going to be way too scientific for those who prefer to think we’re witches! But we can just keep on saying it out loud: HOMEOPATHY WORKS!! NOW YOU CAN SEE WHY!


    • johnbenneth says:

      Well put , Liz, thank you for taking time to comment. That Martin Chaplin and Rustum Roy were so complimentary of each other says much about how the craft of homeopathy is finally being recognied by mainstream science.


  7. kevin morris says:

    Dear John,

    Nobody can deny your efforts on behalf of homoeopathy and I thank you for them, but I do wonder at your statement, ‘I don’t think homeopaths’ ignorance of the pre-clinical and clinical tests for homeopathy is excusable,’

    As you well know, the first concern of homoeopaths is healing the sick, and according to one of the most sophisticated medical paradigms known to man. That this requires constant study and frequent burning of the midnight oil is self evident and we tend to be content to leave the shouting about peripheral issues to people like you, with time on their hands.

    In the meantime, all the best for the new year and thanks again for your efforts.

    Best wishes,



    • johnbenneth says:

      Dear Kevin,
      I am very pleased to hear from you again. We need to make time for the things that are important, and we are instructed to shout about them from the roof tops.
      As our critics do not want to accept our case notes in the form of the materia medica as evidence of the efficacy of our doctrine, we are blessed to be validated by classic scientific methods conducted by non homeoapths.
      These people, non homeoaths like Rustum Roy, William Tiller, Rolland Conte, Brian Josephson, Martin Chaplin, Gary Schwartz, Andrew Weil, Luc Monatagnier, Gerogos Anagnostatos need to be studied and learned from, or at least recognized by us for their efforts. But I don’t see that in the homeoapthic communicty, and you being an exception to this, seeing what hyou had to go through just to attend the conference at the Cavendish, shoud join me in this.
      That same weekend you and I were at the Cavendish, 100 homeopaths were meeting in Cambridge. One of them told me she already knew how homeoapthy worked. I doubt any of them knows how it works, an if they do, they sure aren’t doing anything with it. Time on my hands? WHo do you think I am? THIS IS MY CRAFT, THIS IS MY SCIENCE. Iwill know everything I can about it andI willmeet its problems head on.
      I have to know every technical detail within reason about it. That the water molecular is polar protic is a critical issue here, yet I wonder how many you homeopaths in a thousand know what that means or why it is relevant to homeoapthy.
      THis is an important field of medicine that has been under attack by allopathy for 200 years because it is not supposed to be classical science. Well John Benneth says NO! It is classical science, and can be eplaine to those who can sit still long enough, who have made the time to learn it. Classical science supports homeopathy in test, trial an theory, right down to the atom, it all can be explained and will be explained — and it is the duty of every homeopath, at the risk of his government issued license, to know it.
      The only problem here I see here is that too many homeoapths have come to believe the oppostion’s bullshit and don’t try seeing the answers that are right under their noses.


      • kevin morris says:

        John, you are a great friend of homoeopathy despite your love of invective, but the most useful way of supporting homoeopathy is in practising it because every patient we heal tells their friends and their family. There is absolutely no call for homoeopaths to understand the physics of the hydrogen bond, clathrates or any such thing, merely to be skilled at healing the sick. From my perspective, that is demanding task enough for most homoeopaths. Nevertheless, I applaud you for having troubled to bone up on this and to pass it onto the world.

        I sometimes think a handful of your supporters forget that homoeopathy hasn’t grown to become the second most widespread medical system in the world through aggressive proselytising but through our success in healing the sick.

        I learned during my terminal illness that homoeopathy so wonderfully and painlessly cured, that the world we all inhabit is largely the projection of our own interiors. In my view, true health comes from a realisation that this is the case. Sadly, it is a lesson I have learned to my cost that far too few it the world recognise this.

        The world really is far nicer than some of us would believe but it is also rather more complex than some of your more aggressive supporters workking out deep seated problems of their own would have it. We all know that the likes of the sad old illusionist and our German friend at Exeter are rather unpleasant but most people who inhabit the world of daylight tend to be more open minded.

        If we truly wish to heal the sick we must learn to inhabit the daylight too and spend far less time sitting at computer screens putting the world to rights at several places removed. In short it is encumbent on all of us to work hard at doing what homoeopathy does best. This is unglamorous work but is ultimately far more rewarding.

        It’s either that or carrting on tilting at windmills.

        Best wishes,


        ps unless it was irony way above my head I thought your comments on the stinginess of your host and supporter were ungracious.


        • johnbenneth says:

          Dear Kevin-

          I have something I find few others possess. I have something worth fighting for. Unlike in the UK, where homeoapthic services have been offered as a part of your national health plan, in the U.S. homeopathy does not recieve such promotion. WHcih insurance plans in the U.S. offered homeopathic treament.
          But this is minor to the opposition homeopathy faces. There are factions that have been organized to destroy it.
          I think everyone should recieve homeopathic treatment. We ahve a cancer epiddemic in the Wesern world, and homeoapthy offers a treament superior to allopathic.
          That’s something worth fighting for.
          It is a common law principle that a man, in defending himself, is allowed bellicosity. WHen they went to arrest Christ, one of his disiples cut off a man’s ear. Why was a sword amongst these healers?
          I did not mean to be taken seriously about the Scotch. I have great fondness for Brian Josephson, and we have sparred playfully over the Scotch in email.
          If anyone was to take offense it should be me, for him crapping all over my lecture with some of his comments. If he and Littlewood had any criticisms of it they could have waved me off, as they had the Power Point presentation well in advance of October 1st. The fact of the matter i that I’m right, and I’ve had a lot of shit thrown at me for it. Josephson is the oneof the few if not the only scientist who has the courage to get close to me. I udnertand what’s going on. Their careers are at stake. I’m a huge embarassment to the establishment which has had great fun showing off how smart they are beating the crap out of homeopathy, and yet here is some non academic bearing clathrates.
          Once again, it may not be excusable, but it is understandable. No one wants to be tarred like Benveniste. Everyone wants to play the hero and be cheered when he walks onto the stage, not be pelted with boos, hisses, ridicule and insults. Fine, but anyone who comes after me with that black brush had better be ready to get some on himself.
          I think what they do is hateful and criminal. And I am sorry to see that so many others will excuse themselves from it like a herd of cowards who secretly take joy in watching one of their own torn to pieces.


          • According to the Skeptiks, who like other religeons believe that anything outside
            their beliefs must be wrong, gravity did not actually exist until ‘science’ discovered it. The reliance upon ‘science’ ie,. their ‘science’ as the only basis for explaing
            natural phenoma is better classed as scientism.


            • johnbenneth says:

              Good point, Richard. There is no commonly accepted explanation for what gravity is or how it works, but it is obviously a form of magnetism. However, we don’t need to know what it is to know that it exists universally. IN the same way we know that homeopathy and other phenoms are real because they are widely exxperienced and observed.


What do you think? Question? Answer? Please comment. Your thoughful reply will be appreciated

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s